RAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of all the above mentioned connected writ appeals as the common question is involved in all the appeals.

(2.) APPELLANTS have filed the aforesaid writ appeals under section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the common orders dated 22.8.2006 and 3.11.2006 passed in WP (S) 815/06, WP (S) No. 4155/06, WP (S) No. 4160/06, WP No. 5006/ 05 (S), WP (S) No. 1426/06, WP (S) No. 1344/06, WP (S) No. 1604/06, WP (S) No. 2704/06, WP No. 4488/05(S), WP (S) No. 609/06, WP (S) no. 1974/06, WP (S) No. 1000/2006, WP(S) No. 1697/06, WP (S) No. 1344/06, WP (S) No. 1426/06, WP (S) No. 2146/06, WP (S) No. 1504/06 6 WP (S) No. 1656/06 and in all other connected petitions.

(3.) THE M.P. State Road Transport Corporation was incorporated on 1.1962 under the provision of M.P. State Road Transport Act, 1950. The Corporation framed rules and regulations with regard to the appointment of its employees. It was pleaded by the respondents that the Corporation has been running in heavy losses and was not in a position to pay the retiral dues of its employees within time. It was submitted that on 31st March 2004, total loss of the Corporation was 735 crores and the liability was of Rs. 1033.68 crores. The Corporation had to pay the retiral dues including the payment of LIC, which is near about Rs. 183.87 crores. Besides this, the Corporation has been running in continuous loss of Rs. 20 crores per month. Looking to the aforesaid loss and various facts and circumstances of the case, the Corporation and the State Government have taken a decision to close the Corporation because it was found that it was not possible to restructure the Corporation and to run it on profit basis. Around 10,000 employees were working in the Corporation. Decision was taken by the Cabinet regarding closure of the Corporation and the Central Government vide letter dated 23rd March 2005 granted permission to the State Government to close the Corporation. The Corporation framed Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2005 (VRS 2005). As per the Scheme, the employees would be entitled to get to two months extra salary if they opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme except other emoluments. It was also decided that the employees will get amount which would be equal to the amount payable after his retirement of normal age of 58 years. It has also been decided that the no employee would get the amount above Rs. 5 lacs under the aforesaid scheme. 90% of the employees have opted the VRS and remaining employees did not apply for VRS and they have filed the petitions before this Court. Their contention is that Corporation has provided alternative employment to many employees and has also recommended the cases of some of the employees for their absorption in other departments. Therefore, it was alleged that Corporation has discrminated amongst the employees and they have a right for direction of alternative employment.